Move over NC, Duke, Kansas, and UCLA..............
- Thread starter Seneca_Valley
- Start date
I'm not sure you can "join" the bluebloods. That's based on historical greatness going back to your grandpa's days. But, yes, UConn is already a blueblood by some definitions whether they win this NC or lose by 50 on Saturday. The reason I'm not sure that they can ever be a true blue blood is because of their lack or national fanbase/national appeal. But they have scoreboard for sure which is why I posted on the other board the ACC should just add them and give them no football revenue for 10 years like SMU.
Based on the definition of blue blood, it seems teams should have more historical success. However, Duke is considered a blue blood and most of their success came after 1980. I think UConn will be referred to as a blue blood if they win this year.
When the Big East was formed in the early 80s and people were told the conference had a future blue blood…UConn would’ve been the last team predicted.
When the Big East was formed in the early 80s and people were told the conference had a future blue blood…UConn would’ve been the last team predicted.
If the ACC loses UNC, UVA, etc. how good of a conference would it even be? I doubt Uconn cares about football enough to ever compromise their basketball program by joining a lesser league. They'd probably just as soon shut the football program down.
That’s a good point about the national fan base. It’s weird because recently(ish) successful college football teams like Clemson, FSU, and Miami have lots of national fans. But I rarely see UConn stuff who don’t have an association with UConn.
If you don't like the word "join" then let's use "recognize" The rest of your post is ridiculous. Winning it all over the years is how you get there. Six trophies over a quarter century is unreal.
I swear part of it is because of how ugly their uniform colors are. That Carolina Blue was everywhere in the 90s.
Then again, I never see anybody wearing Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, etc. stuff either. Maybe it's an East Coast thing. Basketball-wise, it tends to be either Duke or UNC that I see.
When we joined the conference they were pretty much the doormats.
From that 82-83 season on, UConn's finish in the 9 team league for the next seven seasons: 7, t7, 7, t8, t8, 9, t7
And then in 89-90, 12-4 and tied for first in conference, won the Big East tournament, and lost to Duke in the Elite Eight in overtime. It's like they flipped a switch, and the program was completely different.
Duke was pretty successful long before K. 3 final 4’s and another elite 8 in the 1960s, 3rd place twice
National runner up 1978
Calhoun turned their program around. Hurley may outdo him after the next decade or so. Definitely a blueblood as they've "sustained". "No longer a blueblood" should include Indiana and UCLA, for two. Despite UCLA's enormous run under Wooden, they are not who they once were
they are not who they once were..uh, nobody is or ever was besides them.
UCLA has been in four final fours in the last 18 years...enough to maintain blueblood status....Indiana has not been to one in over twenty years...can't lump these two together...
Last edited:
I stand corrected; UCLA is still a blueblood. It'll be interesting to see if they can retain an elite status over the next decade or so as they compete in the B1G.
I dont think you can consider UCLA a blueblood anymore. They didnt maintain a high enough level and develop a national following post-Wooden. Its really just the 4.
Then you have a large group after them
UConn
UCLA
Nova
Mich
Mich St
Florida was there foe awhilw
Arizona
Louisville
Syracuse (fading fast)
Florida is weird program. They have won at a high level and for the most part, they don't even care.
Most football schools are like that. As good as SEC basketball is, those fans dont really care. There were seriously 200 South Carolina fans in Pittsburgh, mostly friends and family. Didnt even sell their allotment. Neither did TT or Oregon (but much further away)
Duke, UNC, Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, and UConn are the blue bloods in basketball. Indiana is like Nebraska football. 15 to 20 years ago the answer would be yes for both, but not now.
South Carolina fans might be following their women's program.
Some have really bought in a lot more than Florida fans have, and don't have anywhere near the level of success.
SEC schools are getting crazy spending on women's hoops. Check out the coaching changes at Tennessee & Kentucky. It's insane.
I have 0 interest in women's ball unless Pitt is good or Caitlin Clark is playing. If SC played LSU in my backyard, I wouldn't watch
I cannot confirm this, but my understanding is that there would have been more Texas Tech fans there but there were problems with the stage coach that week so it was too hard for their fans to get someplace with an airport.
The quiet consensus was that that switch back in the late 80s was flipped with cash payments. They very suddenly started getting a different level of player than they had ever had there before, and from parts of the country where nobody had ever heard of UCONN.
I remember UConn was like the current BC of the ACC. Sometimes they weren't totally terrible but most of the time they were. And they were never good. I think the group that flipped it for them was the 2 Israeli guards, Doron Sheffer and Nadav Henefeld.
Henefeld played one season for UConn, the 89-90 season when their fortunes changed. He was good, but that team had three NBA players on it and he was not one of them.
Sheffer played three seasons there, but didn't get there until the 93-94 season.
Cliff Robinson out of Buffalo was the first big puzzle piece. I think he was there a year before Calhoun took over. Lyman DePriest out of Detroit was Calhoun’s first big national recruit and nobody could understand why he chose UCONN—kind of like when D. Gore who had offers from everyone chose Pitt when Pitt was still a basketball backwater. I remember later on Gary Williams venting about how UCONN was using creative means to pay recruits.
They hired Calhoun when we got Evans. They have had a steady to spectacular program ever since.
Ever wonder why UConn under Calhoun and now under Hurley were able to continually improve and break through at a national level with stellar tourney results while Pitt under Dixon just hit a ceiling, plateaued and slowly regressed as a program. Frustrating….I’m still not seeing that UConn had inherent advantages, which Pitt doesn’t have, which allowed them to achieve a level of success that has completely eluded Pitt. I still believe it comes down to the quality of the HC as both a recruiter and game tactician.
UConn basketball is the pro sports team in the state of Connecticut and they have a very good following with a strong financial backing. They have clear advantage$.
UConn will do whatever it takes to win. Jeff Pearlman needs to write a book on the rise of the men's and women's programs beginning in the late 80s because it's pretty fascinating that it happened in Storrs, CT.
It is frustrating that UConn's program has had all the good fortune and Pitt can't break through for various reasons. I guess you make your own breaks and having a strong commitment and smart decision makers helps.
It is frustrating that UConn's program has had all the good fortune and Pitt can't break through for various reasons. I guess you make your own breaks and having a strong commitment and smart decision makers helps.
